Get All Cards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all cards in a list' accurately implies a read-only collection operation and does not suggest destructive effects, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, archived cards, or auth/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter collection reader, the description plus the available output schema are largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps such as ordering or whether archived cards are included do not critically undermine usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only listId with type string and no description, so 'in a list' adds the important semantic that listId identifies the containing list. However, the description does not clarify the ID format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to the get_all_lists output.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all cards'), and a scope ('in a list'). The sibling tools get_card and get_card_details make the collection-level distinction obvious, so an agent can tell this apart without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_card, get_card_details, or get_all_tasks. There are no exclusion conditions or explicit alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.